Hi, I just wanted to share an email that I wrote to a friend today. It sort of sums up where I am at the moment and what was going through my head these past couple of days. Apologies in advance if some of the quotes are mislabeled as I copied many of them from my notebook so I hadn't written which book I got them from. Also apologies for the way some of it is laid out, I copied and pasted from an online book which was formatted oddly. Please feel free to comment, feedback would be much appreciated!
This is part of a written piece by L.K.J.
"The great Sufi Shaykh Ibn al-‘Arabi explains that “imperfection” exists in Creation because “were there no imperfection, the perfection of existence would be imperfect.” From the point of view of Sheer Being, there is nothing but good.
But Infinite Potential to BE includes – by definition of the word “infinite” – the potential to Not Be. And so, Infinite Potential – The ALL – “splits” into Thought Centers of Creation/BEing and Thought Centers of Entropy/Non-being. It can be said that Infinite Potential is fundamentally Binary – on or off – to be or not to be. That is the first “division.”
Since absolute non-being is an impossible paradox in terms of the source of Infinite Potential to BE, the half of the consciousness of Infinite Potential that constitute the IDEAS of non-being – for every idea of manifestation, there is a corresponding idea for that item of creation to NOT manifest – “falls asleep” for lack of a better term. Its “self observation” is predicated upon consciousness that can only “mimic” death. Consciousness that mimics death then “falls” and becomes Primal Matter. [...]
It has been represented for millennia in the yin-yang symbol, which, even on the black half that represents “sleeping consciousness that is matter,” you can see the small white dot of “being” that represents to us that absolute non-existence is not possible. There is only “relative” non-existence. [...]
At our level of reality, the understanding that “nothing is real,” as has been promulgated by gurus and teachers down through history, is as useless as saying “gravity isn’t real.” Such considerations are useful only for expansion of perception. They are not useful for practical application since the energies of creation apparently transduce through several “levels” before they meet in the middle, so to say, in our reality.
Organic life exists at the “crossroads” of the myriad ideas or thought centers of being and non-being. As such, they have the capacity to transduce energies “up” or “down” depending on the “consciousness energy directors” of that unit. [...]
Against the opposition of those forces seeking to “capture” energy of consciousness and induce it to the “sleep of non-being,” which is gravitational in a certain sense, the energies of consciousness seek to “inform” matter via awakening the self-awareness of those organic units on earth that are capable of resistance to the gravity of non-being. As self-aware “transducing units,” the human being has the potential for going either way – toward intensified being, or toward intensified non-being. [...]"
This mirrors some of what is written in Gurdjieff's works about the ray of creation and organic life on earth. The ray of creation is the thought processes filtering down from the "absolute" or "god mind" or whatever you want to call what I refer to as the conscious soup which is ultimately the group mind of everything that exists. I believe we are, in the end (of course there is no end or beginning!) pure consciousness which manifests itself in infinite ways. Like the yin/yang theory of the whole, dividing in to two, the two main thought forms of being/non being which radiates down to our "level" manifesting in what we perceive as our own thoughts and actions as human beings. What I was contemplating the other day was that we are simply conscious machines. It's as if our actions are not our own, like we are controlled by some "outside" forces and all we are really is an awareness, an awareness of what is going on in our physical bodies after a decision has been made in some subconscious plane of existence out with our current scope of understanding. Like a fight is going on for which thought form will win and manifest through our physical bodies and play out a scenario here in the 3D realm. Our world is a stage and we are the actors or puppets.
"Somewhere about this time I was very much struck
by a talk about the sun, the
planets, and the moon. I do
not remember how this talk
began. But I remember that
G.
drew a small diagram
and tried to explain what he
called the "correlation of
forces in different worlds."
This was in connection with
the previous talk, that is, in
connection with the influences acting on
humanity. The idea was
roughly this: humanity, or
more correctly, organic life
on earth, is acted upon
simultaneously by
influences proceeding from
various sources and
different worlds: influences
from the planets, influences
from the moon, influences
from the sun, influences
from the stars. All these influences act
simultaneously; one
influence predominates at
one moment and another
influence at another
moment. And for man there
is a certain possibility of
making a choice of
influences; in other words,
of passing from one
influence to another.
In search of the miraculous
So thought waves radiate "up" from the absolute, through the densest matter, the sleeping matter of metals, rocks, earth and planets, black holes ect to us, humans and pulls is gravitationally towards non being, sleep, self service, contraction. It also radiates "down" from the absolute through the spiritual, non physical realms of expansion, creation, service to others, light, knowledge and love, guiding us towards true being. The absolute thought forms radiating "up" and "down", being one and the same source, the beginning and end simultaneously. It is up to us to decide which "way" to go
Sure, in the ultimate Grand Scheme of things, everything goes back to source. The difference is that those with the BEing nature of Creativity don’t like the idea of Entropy and they reserve the right to make a choice.
It is easier to resist evil at the beginning than at the end.
And it is oh, so easy to excuse yourself from resisting by just saying: “Oh, it’s just a movie! We can all go home at the end and know that everyone played their parts well…”
There is more than a little scientific support for the above ideas that consciousness – the root of existence and BEing – has two fundamental states: on, or off. In the final analysis, it seems that the metaphor of humanity and its collective “higher selves” being a movie and an audience, may be simply anthropomorphizing creative and entropic forces of the universe for the purposes of “self-calming.” The stakes, it seems, are a lot higher and more real.
This brings us to the issue of subjectivity vs. objectivity. In recent weeks, I have been queried by several people who want to know just HOW “Knowledge protects.” My response was too lengthy to reproduce here, but I said in part:
As the C’s have said, and this is echoed in the most ancient traditions: “It’s not where you are, but WHO you are and WHAT YOU SEE that counts.” This “who” and “what you see” have been somewhat problematical as research subjects, and it has only been in the last three years that clear understanding of these concepts have been articulated. I discuss both extensively in my lectures on Alchemy.
We must regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. Consider an intelligence which, at any instant, could have a knowledge of all forces controlling nature together with the momentary conditions of all the entities of which nature consists. If this intelligence were powerful enough to submit all this data to analysis it would be able to embrace in a single formula the movements of the largest bodies in the universe and those of the lightest atoms; for it, nothing would be uncertain; the future and the past would be equally present to its eyes. [Pierre Laplace]
Certainly, such an intelligence as Laplace describes would be “Godlike,” you agree? And certainly, no one of us human beings is capable of such “seeing,” you will also agree. However, what does seem to be true is that this is a significant clue to the solutions to the pressing issues of our day: knowledge that leads to awareness.
Here I will insert a major clue: As the brain interacts with its environment, synaptic circuits combine to form synaptic maps of the world perceived by the senses. These maps describe small segments of that world – shape, color, movement – and these maps are scattered throughout the brain. As the brain’s synaptic network evolves, beginning at birth – or even before – these maps process information simultaneously and in parallel.
Based on our synaptic maps of the world, we are enabled to have a more or less objective view of reality.
Classical physics asserts that the future already exists, as do the present and past. Everything that ever will happen has already happened. But for some unknown reason our minds can only experience the future a piece at a time in what we call the present.
Quantum physics, on the other hand, says that we can never predict the future with absolute certainty. The future does not yet exist in a single definite state. Quantum uncertainty does not deny us all knowledge about the future. It gives us the tools to make predictions, but only in terms of probabilities.
Bohr and other leading physicists of the Copenhagen School say that objective reality is an ambiguous concept at the quantum level. In physics, our knowledge comes only when we actually measure something, and even then the way we decide to perform the measurement affects the results we obtain.
Asking the same question in different ways may give seemingly contradictory answers, but no single experiment will itself provide contradictory information. Some experiments will show electrons as waves, and others will show them as particles. In no single experiment do electrons display wavelike and particle-like behavior simultaneously. Bohr called this complementarity.
Quantum mechanics leaves the observer uncertain about the actual nature of reality. Are they really waves or particles? We don’t know and no experiment will tell us. Detecting one of the attributes automatically excludes knowledge about the other.
There is a striking similarity between life and thought. Just as there are more potential life forms than the planet can hold, there are more potential ideas than our minds can possibly absorb and remember.
Just as evolutionary natural selection may generate change by choosing from among the many potential forms of life, so may thought be able to generate evolutionary change by choosing among many potential thoughts.
The master evolutionary mechanism is found in the wave function of the universe. The observer guides the selection from an infinite number of potential arrangements that the universe may assume from moment to moment.
The universe has many possible future states or potentialities represented by the wave function. The wave function is constantly collapsing into the present as the many possible states become a single state as the present unfolds and possibilities become actualities.
LKJ
So we choose which of the many potential thoughts to act upon and our ability to read and understand the signs in our world objectively help us to decide which end point these thoughts emanate from and lead to, being or non being. Service to self or service to others. The more knowledge we have of our reality and the better understanding we have of the past helps us to "predict the future" and choose the desired path. How we assimilate the impressions we receive determines this and if we are clogged up with subjective programming, false beliefs, emotional armouring, trauma and fear we are blinded, we have no hope of really SEEing. This is why "the work" is so important to me.
When we choose what we see—and here
we do not mean with the physical eyes or
even psychically, but rather a more
inclusive term that suggests whether or not
we are capable of objectivity or subjectivity
—we are receiving impressions.
Impressions can become knowledge if
assimilated. Knowledge leads to awareness.
Knowledge and awareness then direct
emotions, which then energize actions in
the organic world. This is the transducing of
energies of cosmic thought centers.
Whether or not the impressions are
assimilated objectively will determine with
which of the thought centers, being or
non-being, we are in alignment.
Ibn al-’Arabi tells us that Goodness is
Being; to which all positive and beautiful
attributes or Names of God belong. Evil is
the lack of good, so it is “nonexistence”. In
other words, at the root, Being dwells in
“non-existence” which is evil. Here is the
sticking point, the item that is generally
omitted from most “systems of
ascension”. Human beings at our level of
reality exist at the crossroads of the
thoughts of Being and Non-Being—Good
and Evil. Mankind is made in the form of all
the Names of God—those of Being and
Non-Being. Assuming the traits of the
Names is synonymous with manifesting
their properties. The search for the Grail is
to obtain deep knowledge of all the Names
and their true properties, the high and the
low, the pleasant and the loathsome, the
light and the darkness, in differentiated
detail, so as to be able to choose which
traits will be assumed. It is only with a full
field of vision that a man can discover if
what he subjectively thinks is good actually
is good and leads to Being, or if it is a
deception that induces to Non-Being by
pretense.
God is the root of all Names, noble and
base. The task of the seeker is to bring the
Noble traits from latency into actuality and
to discover the positive applications of the
base traits—even if that application is to
“overcome” or transmute. The Shaykh tells
us “noble character traits are only those
connected to interaction with others”. In
other words: DOing. If you see the illusion
of separation, that is certainly the first
thing. The lie is smuggled in by suggesting
that this is all that is necessary, that if you
just “see it”, everything will “change” for
you.
God creates the good and the evil, the
ugly and the beautiful, the straight and the
crooked, the moral and the immoral.
Between these traits lie the manifold
dangers of the path of the seeker of
Truth. Many modern day “teachers” and
“gurus” tell us “Since there is only One
Being which permeates all things, all we
have to do is see everything as only light”,
and that will transmute the darkness, and
we will “create our own reality of light”.
Such a statement ignores the fact that the
statement “God is One” describes a reality
that is a higher level from which our own
“mixed being” manifests. The man who
assumes that he can become like God at
this level just by thinking it, ignores the
facts of Being vs. Non-Being which outrays
from “God is One” at a level of existence
that is clearly several levels above our own.
Evil is real on its own level, and the task
of man is to navigate the cosmic maze
without being defiled by the Evil therein.
This is the root of Free Will. Man faces a
predicament as real as himself: he is forced
to choose—to utilize his knowledge by
applying it—between the straight path
which leads to Being, and the crooked
paths which lead to Non-Being. Human
beings are required to discern between
good and evil—consciousness energy
directors—at every stage of their existence
in this reality. Because, in fact, they must
understand that God is consciousness and
God is matter. God is good, and God is evil.
The Creation assumes all the different
properties of the many “Names of God”.
The Cosmos is full of Life-Giving and
Slaying, Forgiveness and Vengeance,
Exaltation and Abasement, Guidance and
Deception. To attempt to assume God’s
point of view and “mix everything” at this
level, results only in staying at this level.
Therefore, human beings must always
separate God’s point of view from their own
point of view and the fact that all creation
assumes the divine Names and Traits.
Thus, the first Divine Command is BE!
And that includes Being and Non-Being
instantaneously. Therefore, the second law
is “follow Being or Non-Being according to
your choice and your inherent nature”. All
creation is a result of the engendering
command. So, in this respect, there is no
Evil. But the second, prescriptive law
determines to which Face of God one will
return: Life or Death.
If the engendering command alone is
considered, there is no imperfection
in the cosmos, since all creatures
follow what God desires for them. In
this respect, what is normally called
“imperfection” is in fact perfection,
since it allows for the actualization of
the various levels of existence and
knowledge. In other words, were
there no imperfections—in the sense
of diminishment, decrease, and lack
—there would be no creation. Were
there no creation, the Hidden
Treasure would remain hidden.
Hence Being would be unseen in
every respect. There would be no
self-disclosure of the Divine Reality,
Light would not shine, and God would
be the Nonmanifest but not the
Manifest. But all this is absurd, since
it demands the imperfection of Being
Itself, which by definition is
nondelimited perfection. Being’s
perfection requires the manifestation
of Its properties. The effects of the
Names and Attributes must be
displayed for God to be God. […] In
other words, Imperfection is
demanded by existence itself. To be
“other than God” is to be imperfect.
…But it is precisely the “otherness”
which allows the cosmos and all the
creatures within it to exist. If things
were perfect in every respect, they
would be identical with God Himself,
and there would be nothing “other
than God”. But then we could not
even speak about the cosmos, since
there would be no cosmos and no
speakers. …So, imperfection is a kind
of perfection. (Chittick, 1989)
High Strangeness LKJ
This is what I read which made me think of all the "little I's" that Ouspensky talks of. The theory that we receive ideas or thoughts which are not "our own" yet we believe them to be ours because they originate in our own minds. The emanations from either face of the absolute:
At the turn of the nineteenth century, however, William James, who had studied with the expermental psychologists of his time, took an experiential, rather than philosophical and speculative, approach to the study of emotions. James would set up imagined situations, such as being chased by a bear, and then through experiential introspection would attempt to infer the chain of events by which an emotion, such as fear, was generated. In these subjective experiments he would sense into the interior of his body, as well as noting his thoughts and internal images. Ultimately, he arrived at a rather unexpected conclusion. Common sense dictates that when we see a bear, we are frightened, and then motivated by fear, we flee. However, in his careful, reflective observations, James concluded that rather than running because we are afraid, we are afraid because we are running. In James's words,
"My theory.... is that the bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion. "Common sense" says we lose our fortune, are sorry and weep; we meet a bear, are frightened and run; we are insulted by a rival, are angry and strike. The hypothesis here to be defended says that this order of sequence is incorrect, that the one mental state is not immediately induced by the other, that the bodily manifestations may first be interposed between, and the more rational (accurate) statement is that we feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble."
This counterintuitive (bottom-up) view challenged the Cartesian/cognitive (top-down) paradigm where the conscious mind first recognizes the source of threat and then commands the body to respond; to flee, to fight or to fold. James's bottom-up perception - that we feel fear because we are running away from the threat - while only partially correct, does make a crucial point about the illusionary nature of perception. We commonly believe, for example, that when we touch a hot object, we draw our hand away because of the pain. However the reality is that if we were to wait until we experienced pain in order to withdraw our hand, we might damage it beyond repair. Every student of elementary physiology learns that there is first a reflex withdrawal of the hand, which is only then followed by the sensation of pain. The pain might well serve the function of reminding us not to pick up a potentially hot stone from a fire pit a second time, but it has little to do with our hand withdrawing when it is first burned. Similarly, every student of basic chemistry learns, hopefully after the first encounter, that hot test tubes look just like cold ones. However, what we falsely perceive, and believe as fact, is that the pain causes us to withdraw our hand. James was able to perceive that fear was not a primarily cognitive affair, that there was a muscular and visceral reaction in his body first, and that it was the perception of this body reaction that then generated the emotion of fear. What James observed was that, yes, when the brain calculates that there is danger. it makes this assessment so quickly that there isn't enough time for the person to become consciously aware of it. What happens instead, according to James, is that the brain canvases the body to see how it is reacting in the moment. In what was a revelatory revision, James relocated the consciousness of feeling from mind to body. In doing this he demonstrated a rare prescience about what neuroscience was only to begin to discover a hundred years later. Ben Libet, neurosurgeon and neurophysiologist at the University of California-San Francisco's Medical School, conducted a revealing, but little known, series of studies over thirty years ago. He essentially confirmed James's observational chain. Here's a little experiment that you can do right now. Hold one of your arms out in front of you with your hand facing upward. Then, whenever you feel like it (of your own "free will"), flex your wrist. Do this several times and watch what happens in your mind. You probably felt as though you first consciously decided to move and then, following your intention, you moved it. It feels to you as though the conscious decision caused the action.
Libet asked experimental subjects to do just this while he systematically measured the timing of three things: (1) The subjects "conscious" decision to move was marked on a special clock. (2) The beginning of (what is called) the readiness potential in the motor cortex was measured using EEG electrodes on the scalp. (3) The start of the actual action was measured using electrodes on the wrist. So which do you think (based on your experience in the preceding experiment) came first? Was it the decision to move, activity in the motor cortex, or the actual movement? The answer, defying credulity, dramatically contradicted common sense. The brain's activity began 500 milliseconds (half a second!) before the person was aware of deciding to act. The conscious decision came far too late to be the cause of the action. It was as though consciousness was a mere afterthought - a way of "explaining to ourselves", an action not evoked by consciousness. As peculiar as this might seem, it fits in with previous experiments that Libet did on exposed brains as part of a neurosurgical procedure. Here, Libet had demonstrated that about half a second of continuous activity of stimulation in the sensory cortex is needed for a person to become aware of a sensory stimulus.
In summary, Libet found that the "conscious" decision to perform a simple action (such as pushing a button) preceded the action. This conscious decision, however occurred only after the "premotor" area in the brain first fired with a burst of electrical activity. In other words, people decide to act only after their brain unconsciously prepares them to do so.
In an unspoken voice, Peter Levine
So are these "unconscious decisions" the will of the absolute acting upon our subconscious? The thought forms emanating up or down through the densities and reaching our transducing units and manifesting in physical actions or behaviours?
What does that mean for my search for the real I? Technically I am all, the good and the evil, I am all the manifestations of the absolute because I am the absolute. Yet right now I am here as a fragment of the same and I must choose which face of it I shall manifest as at this "time" It is as if the battle is through me as to who "I" am. Which thought forms will I listen to, or as is suggested above has it already been decided before I act? I was thinking all of Tuesday, Am I simply an awareness of the play unfolding using my physical body? An afterthought of the decisions of some higher source which I am not privy to understanding at present? Am I just a conscious machine or do I really have a choice? I feel like sometimes I am just witnessing actions taking place, as if my consciousness takes a step back and things just "happen". Yet I came to realise this manifests in different ways, if I switch off and don't think about my actions and words before they come out and seemingly unconscious thoughts manifest, they tend towards the service to self variety, I am more likely to be cruel and selfish towards others because my awareness of what I am doing is not functioning. I am allowing a contractile single pointed gathering of consciousness to take control because my awareness only extends to that single moment of myself, what makes me feel good at that point in time and not what the consequences of my actions/words may be. Yet if I "self remember" and expand my awareness of the current moment to encompass all that is in and around it and what may be, my focus stretches and I feel open and my actions tend towards the thoughtful and service to others variety. How my words and actions affect others and how I can utilise my knowledge to be helpful in each situation. So to that degree I feel like I do have control. My control over myself and my body is my will and my focus. A constant effort is required to maintain the will and awareness required to allow the desired thought forms to flow inward and manifest through me. I am a vessel of the expression of higher realms and it is my task or choice to be a clear channel for the service to others emanations. Like a positive feedback loop, I will myself to do things like sleeping well, maintaining a challenging diet, taking cold showers, taking vitamins/minerals, not taking drugs, not self harming, I practice yoga, take care of my body and mind, learn, meditate, read and live a positive existence in order for the grooving of a different channel than what I was aligned with 4 years ago. The more steps I take towards this goal the easier it becomes because my connection to that path becomes stronger.
"The future is like a tree, with one "true life" and many possible branches, depending on choices made, gives life to a branch and withers or stops growth in another."
LJK
"The exploration and balancing of the spirit complex is indeed the longest and most subtle part of your teaching. We have considered the mind as a tree. The mind controls the body. With the mind single pointed, balanced and aware, the body comfortable in whatever biases and distortions make it appropriately balanced for that instrument, the instrument is then ready to proceed with the greater work. That is the work of the wind and fire. The spiritual body energy field is a pathway or channel. When body and mind are receptive and open, then the spirit can become a functioning shuttle or communicator from the entities individual energy/will upwards and from the streamings of the the creative fire and wind downwards."
Bringers of the Dawn, Barbara Marciniak
So I suppose in conclusion I know what I want to do and that is to learn as much as possible in order for me to be able to grow and see my reality objectively. Once I have a handle on what I hope and believe is as an objective a view as currently possible I aim to be able to share that knowledge with others who are asking in order to help them advance on their paths. Anything else is simply distractions and counter productive. Love is light is knowledge after all.
"Efforts give results proportionate to understanding. One must not believe anything, one must verify everything. One must not do anything until one understands why and for what purpose. One must not do unnecessary things."
In Search of the Miraculous
"Being serious means to take nothing seriously with the exception of things which you know
are important in relation to what you want"
In search of the miraculous
"order can be brought out of chaos by observing chaos as it is and not pretending that is is otherwise. If you are able to view the universe as it views itself, objectively, without blinking and with acceptance, then you become more "aligned" with the creative energy of the universe and your very consciousness becomes a transducer of order. Your energy of observation, given unconditionally, can bring order to chaos, can create out of infinite potential. It is not whether or not one believes in good things or bad things that makes good things or bad things happen. It is the factual observation of reality and whether or not it leads to a true assessment or lies"
LJK
I can't help but think of a book I read called Chaos by James Gleick which explains patterns and order which arises from seemingly chaotic, complicated rhythms of nature. For example the Lorenz system which was based on a weather simulation computer programme:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system
"As the system is an organic whole, the understanding of any part contributes to the understanding of the whole and vice versa. Even the operation of any part is relevant to the operation of the whole (think fractals here)"
LJK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU5tonVT-RU
But how do I discern who is really asking? To me it seems like no one is really asking at all, but that is probably just my perception at present, I shall have to hone my senses and intuition to find the real questioners.
"Very few beings really seek knowledge in this world - few really ask. On the contrary, they try to wring from the unknown the answers they have already shaped in their own minds - justifications, confirmations, forms of consolation without which they can't go on. To really ask is to open the door to a whirlwind. The answer may annihilate the question and the questioner."
The C's
This makes me think back to the first time I was given the book High Strangeness by my flatmate. It wasn't long after I had returned from travelling in Asia and had experienced an "awakening" in Cambodia where I saw the hierarchy of the cosmos. I certainly wasn't asking to see what I did and had no former belief in anything beyond the 3 dimensional universe we lived in. I was an atheist and had never seen or read any of these theories, so where did this idea suddenly come from? What was I asking for? It was a complete turnaround of everything I was certain about. The universe was a pointless accident and so was I, then suddenly it was like "oh by the way, this is happening, Boom we all share a mind BTW". I could never look at anything in the same way again.
She had never even read the book and it was given to her by a friend years previously. It was by pure chance that it came into my possession and it lay unread for months in my room till one day I chose to pick it up. After that, everything about my current perspective of what was shifted gears again. This is what confuses me, who was I asking questions to? How did all these synchronous events lead me to this point when I had no idea I was asking any questions at all. Was I seeking something on a subconscious level? Or perhaps it was just "good karma" that helped me along when I needed it most. And boy I needed it then, I was in serious danger of going down the "wrong" path with no hope of return.
"The balancing mechanism of karma does not merely serve the rectification process of our many spiritual teachings, but actually serve to harmonize the soul in objective understanding of unity of all, or to consolidate a contractile soul that refuses repeatedly to see difference as many aspects of the one and chooses instead to seek to make all one by eliminating differences"
The C's
Perhaps my experiences were simply a rectification of something that went awry earlier on in my life which pushed me in the "wrong" direction and caused so many years of disharmony and misery that I experienced as a result of my misalignment. Who knows? the future is open and I can't wait to see where it will lead for me, or where I choose to take it.
"As we have told you before, if you will be patient just a moment, the universe is merely a school. And, a school is there for all to learn. That is why everything exists. There is no other reason. Now, if only you understood the true depth of that statement, you would begin to start to see, and experience for yourself, all the levels of density that it is possible to experience, all the dimensions that it is possible to experience, all awareness. When an individual understands that statement to its greatest possible depth, that individual becomes illumined. And, certainly you have heard of that. And, for one moment, which lasts for all eternity, that individual knows absolutely everything that there is to know."
The C's
This is part of a written piece by L.K.J.
"The great Sufi Shaykh Ibn al-‘Arabi explains that “imperfection” exists in Creation because “were there no imperfection, the perfection of existence would be imperfect.” From the point of view of Sheer Being, there is nothing but good.
But Infinite Potential to BE includes – by definition of the word “infinite” – the potential to Not Be. And so, Infinite Potential – The ALL – “splits” into Thought Centers of Creation/BEing and Thought Centers of Entropy/Non-being. It can be said that Infinite Potential is fundamentally Binary – on or off – to be or not to be. That is the first “division.”
Since absolute non-being is an impossible paradox in terms of the source of Infinite Potential to BE, the half of the consciousness of Infinite Potential that constitute the IDEAS of non-being – for every idea of manifestation, there is a corresponding idea for that item of creation to NOT manifest – “falls asleep” for lack of a better term. Its “self observation” is predicated upon consciousness that can only “mimic” death. Consciousness that mimics death then “falls” and becomes Primal Matter. [...]
It has been represented for millennia in the yin-yang symbol, which, even on the black half that represents “sleeping consciousness that is matter,” you can see the small white dot of “being” that represents to us that absolute non-existence is not possible. There is only “relative” non-existence. [...]
At our level of reality, the understanding that “nothing is real,” as has been promulgated by gurus and teachers down through history, is as useless as saying “gravity isn’t real.” Such considerations are useful only for expansion of perception. They are not useful for practical application since the energies of creation apparently transduce through several “levels” before they meet in the middle, so to say, in our reality.
Organic life exists at the “crossroads” of the myriad ideas or thought centers of being and non-being. As such, they have the capacity to transduce energies “up” or “down” depending on the “consciousness energy directors” of that unit. [...]
Against the opposition of those forces seeking to “capture” energy of consciousness and induce it to the “sleep of non-being,” which is gravitational in a certain sense, the energies of consciousness seek to “inform” matter via awakening the self-awareness of those organic units on earth that are capable of resistance to the gravity of non-being. As self-aware “transducing units,” the human being has the potential for going either way – toward intensified being, or toward intensified non-being. [...]"
This mirrors some of what is written in Gurdjieff's works about the ray of creation and organic life on earth. The ray of creation is the thought processes filtering down from the "absolute" or "god mind" or whatever you want to call what I refer to as the conscious soup which is ultimately the group mind of everything that exists. I believe we are, in the end (of course there is no end or beginning!) pure consciousness which manifests itself in infinite ways. Like the yin/yang theory of the whole, dividing in to two, the two main thought forms of being/non being which radiates down to our "level" manifesting in what we perceive as our own thoughts and actions as human beings. What I was contemplating the other day was that we are simply conscious machines. It's as if our actions are not our own, like we are controlled by some "outside" forces and all we are really is an awareness, an awareness of what is going on in our physical bodies after a decision has been made in some subconscious plane of existence out with our current scope of understanding. Like a fight is going on for which thought form will win and manifest through our physical bodies and play out a scenario here in the 3D realm. Our world is a stage and we are the actors or puppets.
"Somewhere about this time I was very much struck
by a talk about the sun, the
planets, and the moon. I do
not remember how this talk
began. But I remember that
G.
drew a small diagram
and tried to explain what he
called the "correlation of
forces in different worlds."
This was in connection with
the previous talk, that is, in
connection with the influences acting on
humanity. The idea was
roughly this: humanity, or
more correctly, organic life
on earth, is acted upon
simultaneously by
influences proceeding from
various sources and
different worlds: influences
from the planets, influences
from the moon, influences
from the sun, influences
from the stars. All these influences act
simultaneously; one
influence predominates at
one moment and another
influence at another
moment. And for man there
is a certain possibility of
making a choice of
influences; in other words,
of passing from one
influence to another.
In search of the miraculous
So thought waves radiate "up" from the absolute, through the densest matter, the sleeping matter of metals, rocks, earth and planets, black holes ect to us, humans and pulls is gravitationally towards non being, sleep, self service, contraction. It also radiates "down" from the absolute through the spiritual, non physical realms of expansion, creation, service to others, light, knowledge and love, guiding us towards true being. The absolute thought forms radiating "up" and "down", being one and the same source, the beginning and end simultaneously. It is up to us to decide which "way" to go
Sure, in the ultimate Grand Scheme of things, everything goes back to source. The difference is that those with the BEing nature of Creativity don’t like the idea of Entropy and they reserve the right to make a choice.
It is easier to resist evil at the beginning than at the end.
And it is oh, so easy to excuse yourself from resisting by just saying: “Oh, it’s just a movie! We can all go home at the end and know that everyone played their parts well…”
There is more than a little scientific support for the above ideas that consciousness – the root of existence and BEing – has two fundamental states: on, or off. In the final analysis, it seems that the metaphor of humanity and its collective “higher selves” being a movie and an audience, may be simply anthropomorphizing creative and entropic forces of the universe for the purposes of “self-calming.” The stakes, it seems, are a lot higher and more real.
This brings us to the issue of subjectivity vs. objectivity. In recent weeks, I have been queried by several people who want to know just HOW “Knowledge protects.” My response was too lengthy to reproduce here, but I said in part:
As the C’s have said, and this is echoed in the most ancient traditions: “It’s not where you are, but WHO you are and WHAT YOU SEE that counts.” This “who” and “what you see” have been somewhat problematical as research subjects, and it has only been in the last three years that clear understanding of these concepts have been articulated. I discuss both extensively in my lectures on Alchemy.
We must regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. Consider an intelligence which, at any instant, could have a knowledge of all forces controlling nature together with the momentary conditions of all the entities of which nature consists. If this intelligence were powerful enough to submit all this data to analysis it would be able to embrace in a single formula the movements of the largest bodies in the universe and those of the lightest atoms; for it, nothing would be uncertain; the future and the past would be equally present to its eyes. [Pierre Laplace]
Certainly, such an intelligence as Laplace describes would be “Godlike,” you agree? And certainly, no one of us human beings is capable of such “seeing,” you will also agree. However, what does seem to be true is that this is a significant clue to the solutions to the pressing issues of our day: knowledge that leads to awareness.
Here I will insert a major clue: As the brain interacts with its environment, synaptic circuits combine to form synaptic maps of the world perceived by the senses. These maps describe small segments of that world – shape, color, movement – and these maps are scattered throughout the brain. As the brain’s synaptic network evolves, beginning at birth – or even before – these maps process information simultaneously and in parallel.
Based on our synaptic maps of the world, we are enabled to have a more or less objective view of reality.
Classical physics asserts that the future already exists, as do the present and past. Everything that ever will happen has already happened. But for some unknown reason our minds can only experience the future a piece at a time in what we call the present.
Quantum physics, on the other hand, says that we can never predict the future with absolute certainty. The future does not yet exist in a single definite state. Quantum uncertainty does not deny us all knowledge about the future. It gives us the tools to make predictions, but only in terms of probabilities.
Bohr and other leading physicists of the Copenhagen School say that objective reality is an ambiguous concept at the quantum level. In physics, our knowledge comes only when we actually measure something, and even then the way we decide to perform the measurement affects the results we obtain.
Asking the same question in different ways may give seemingly contradictory answers, but no single experiment will itself provide contradictory information. Some experiments will show electrons as waves, and others will show them as particles. In no single experiment do electrons display wavelike and particle-like behavior simultaneously. Bohr called this complementarity.
Quantum mechanics leaves the observer uncertain about the actual nature of reality. Are they really waves or particles? We don’t know and no experiment will tell us. Detecting one of the attributes automatically excludes knowledge about the other.
There is a striking similarity between life and thought. Just as there are more potential life forms than the planet can hold, there are more potential ideas than our minds can possibly absorb and remember.
Just as evolutionary natural selection may generate change by choosing from among the many potential forms of life, so may thought be able to generate evolutionary change by choosing among many potential thoughts.
The master evolutionary mechanism is found in the wave function of the universe. The observer guides the selection from an infinite number of potential arrangements that the universe may assume from moment to moment.
The universe has many possible future states or potentialities represented by the wave function. The wave function is constantly collapsing into the present as the many possible states become a single state as the present unfolds and possibilities become actualities.
LKJ
So we choose which of the many potential thoughts to act upon and our ability to read and understand the signs in our world objectively help us to decide which end point these thoughts emanate from and lead to, being or non being. Service to self or service to others. The more knowledge we have of our reality and the better understanding we have of the past helps us to "predict the future" and choose the desired path. How we assimilate the impressions we receive determines this and if we are clogged up with subjective programming, false beliefs, emotional armouring, trauma and fear we are blinded, we have no hope of really SEEing. This is why "the work" is so important to me.
When we choose what we see—and here
we do not mean with the physical eyes or
even psychically, but rather a more
inclusive term that suggests whether or not
we are capable of objectivity or subjectivity
—we are receiving impressions.
Impressions can become knowledge if
assimilated. Knowledge leads to awareness.
Knowledge and awareness then direct
emotions, which then energize actions in
the organic world. This is the transducing of
energies of cosmic thought centers.
Whether or not the impressions are
assimilated objectively will determine with
which of the thought centers, being or
non-being, we are in alignment.
Ibn al-’Arabi tells us that Goodness is
Being; to which all positive and beautiful
attributes or Names of God belong. Evil is
the lack of good, so it is “nonexistence”. In
other words, at the root, Being dwells in
“non-existence” which is evil. Here is the
sticking point, the item that is generally
omitted from most “systems of
ascension”. Human beings at our level of
reality exist at the crossroads of the
thoughts of Being and Non-Being—Good
and Evil. Mankind is made in the form of all
the Names of God—those of Being and
Non-Being. Assuming the traits of the
Names is synonymous with manifesting
their properties. The search for the Grail is
to obtain deep knowledge of all the Names
and their true properties, the high and the
low, the pleasant and the loathsome, the
light and the darkness, in differentiated
detail, so as to be able to choose which
traits will be assumed. It is only with a full
field of vision that a man can discover if
what he subjectively thinks is good actually
is good and leads to Being, or if it is a
deception that induces to Non-Being by
pretense.
God is the root of all Names, noble and
base. The task of the seeker is to bring the
Noble traits from latency into actuality and
to discover the positive applications of the
base traits—even if that application is to
“overcome” or transmute. The Shaykh tells
us “noble character traits are only those
connected to interaction with others”. In
other words: DOing. If you see the illusion
of separation, that is certainly the first
thing. The lie is smuggled in by suggesting
that this is all that is necessary, that if you
just “see it”, everything will “change” for
you.
God creates the good and the evil, the
ugly and the beautiful, the straight and the
crooked, the moral and the immoral.
Between these traits lie the manifold
dangers of the path of the seeker of
Truth. Many modern day “teachers” and
“gurus” tell us “Since there is only One
Being which permeates all things, all we
have to do is see everything as only light”,
and that will transmute the darkness, and
we will “create our own reality of light”.
Such a statement ignores the fact that the
statement “God is One” describes a reality
that is a higher level from which our own
“mixed being” manifests. The man who
assumes that he can become like God at
this level just by thinking it, ignores the
facts of Being vs. Non-Being which outrays
from “God is One” at a level of existence
that is clearly several levels above our own.
Evil is real on its own level, and the task
of man is to navigate the cosmic maze
without being defiled by the Evil therein.
This is the root of Free Will. Man faces a
predicament as real as himself: he is forced
to choose—to utilize his knowledge by
applying it—between the straight path
which leads to Being, and the crooked
paths which lead to Non-Being. Human
beings are required to discern between
good and evil—consciousness energy
directors—at every stage of their existence
in this reality. Because, in fact, they must
understand that God is consciousness and
God is matter. God is good, and God is evil.
The Creation assumes all the different
properties of the many “Names of God”.
The Cosmos is full of Life-Giving and
Slaying, Forgiveness and Vengeance,
Exaltation and Abasement, Guidance and
Deception. To attempt to assume God’s
point of view and “mix everything” at this
level, results only in staying at this level.
Therefore, human beings must always
separate God’s point of view from their own
point of view and the fact that all creation
assumes the divine Names and Traits.
Thus, the first Divine Command is BE!
And that includes Being and Non-Being
instantaneously. Therefore, the second law
is “follow Being or Non-Being according to
your choice and your inherent nature”. All
creation is a result of the engendering
command. So, in this respect, there is no
Evil. But the second, prescriptive law
determines to which Face of God one will
return: Life or Death.
If the engendering command alone is
considered, there is no imperfection
in the cosmos, since all creatures
follow what God desires for them. In
this respect, what is normally called
“imperfection” is in fact perfection,
since it allows for the actualization of
the various levels of existence and
knowledge. In other words, were
there no imperfections—in the sense
of diminishment, decrease, and lack
—there would be no creation. Were
there no creation, the Hidden
Treasure would remain hidden.
Hence Being would be unseen in
every respect. There would be no
self-disclosure of the Divine Reality,
Light would not shine, and God would
be the Nonmanifest but not the
Manifest. But all this is absurd, since
it demands the imperfection of Being
Itself, which by definition is
nondelimited perfection. Being’s
perfection requires the manifestation
of Its properties. The effects of the
Names and Attributes must be
displayed for God to be God. […] In
other words, Imperfection is
demanded by existence itself. To be
“other than God” is to be imperfect.
…But it is precisely the “otherness”
which allows the cosmos and all the
creatures within it to exist. If things
were perfect in every respect, they
would be identical with God Himself,
and there would be nothing “other
than God”. But then we could not
even speak about the cosmos, since
there would be no cosmos and no
speakers. …So, imperfection is a kind
of perfection. (Chittick, 1989)
High Strangeness LKJ
This is what I read which made me think of all the "little I's" that Ouspensky talks of. The theory that we receive ideas or thoughts which are not "our own" yet we believe them to be ours because they originate in our own minds. The emanations from either face of the absolute:
At the turn of the nineteenth century, however, William James, who had studied with the expermental psychologists of his time, took an experiential, rather than philosophical and speculative, approach to the study of emotions. James would set up imagined situations, such as being chased by a bear, and then through experiential introspection would attempt to infer the chain of events by which an emotion, such as fear, was generated. In these subjective experiments he would sense into the interior of his body, as well as noting his thoughts and internal images. Ultimately, he arrived at a rather unexpected conclusion. Common sense dictates that when we see a bear, we are frightened, and then motivated by fear, we flee. However, in his careful, reflective observations, James concluded that rather than running because we are afraid, we are afraid because we are running. In James's words,
"My theory.... is that the bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion. "Common sense" says we lose our fortune, are sorry and weep; we meet a bear, are frightened and run; we are insulted by a rival, are angry and strike. The hypothesis here to be defended says that this order of sequence is incorrect, that the one mental state is not immediately induced by the other, that the bodily manifestations may first be interposed between, and the more rational (accurate) statement is that we feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble."
This counterintuitive (bottom-up) view challenged the Cartesian/cognitive (top-down) paradigm where the conscious mind first recognizes the source of threat and then commands the body to respond; to flee, to fight or to fold. James's bottom-up perception - that we feel fear because we are running away from the threat - while only partially correct, does make a crucial point about the illusionary nature of perception. We commonly believe, for example, that when we touch a hot object, we draw our hand away because of the pain. However the reality is that if we were to wait until we experienced pain in order to withdraw our hand, we might damage it beyond repair. Every student of elementary physiology learns that there is first a reflex withdrawal of the hand, which is only then followed by the sensation of pain. The pain might well serve the function of reminding us not to pick up a potentially hot stone from a fire pit a second time, but it has little to do with our hand withdrawing when it is first burned. Similarly, every student of basic chemistry learns, hopefully after the first encounter, that hot test tubes look just like cold ones. However, what we falsely perceive, and believe as fact, is that the pain causes us to withdraw our hand. James was able to perceive that fear was not a primarily cognitive affair, that there was a muscular and visceral reaction in his body first, and that it was the perception of this body reaction that then generated the emotion of fear. What James observed was that, yes, when the brain calculates that there is danger. it makes this assessment so quickly that there isn't enough time for the person to become consciously aware of it. What happens instead, according to James, is that the brain canvases the body to see how it is reacting in the moment. In what was a revelatory revision, James relocated the consciousness of feeling from mind to body. In doing this he demonstrated a rare prescience about what neuroscience was only to begin to discover a hundred years later. Ben Libet, neurosurgeon and neurophysiologist at the University of California-San Francisco's Medical School, conducted a revealing, but little known, series of studies over thirty years ago. He essentially confirmed James's observational chain. Here's a little experiment that you can do right now. Hold one of your arms out in front of you with your hand facing upward. Then, whenever you feel like it (of your own "free will"), flex your wrist. Do this several times and watch what happens in your mind. You probably felt as though you first consciously decided to move and then, following your intention, you moved it. It feels to you as though the conscious decision caused the action.
Libet asked experimental subjects to do just this while he systematically measured the timing of three things: (1) The subjects "conscious" decision to move was marked on a special clock. (2) The beginning of (what is called) the readiness potential in the motor cortex was measured using EEG electrodes on the scalp. (3) The start of the actual action was measured using electrodes on the wrist. So which do you think (based on your experience in the preceding experiment) came first? Was it the decision to move, activity in the motor cortex, or the actual movement? The answer, defying credulity, dramatically contradicted common sense. The brain's activity began 500 milliseconds (half a second!) before the person was aware of deciding to act. The conscious decision came far too late to be the cause of the action. It was as though consciousness was a mere afterthought - a way of "explaining to ourselves", an action not evoked by consciousness. As peculiar as this might seem, it fits in with previous experiments that Libet did on exposed brains as part of a neurosurgical procedure. Here, Libet had demonstrated that about half a second of continuous activity of stimulation in the sensory cortex is needed for a person to become aware of a sensory stimulus.
In summary, Libet found that the "conscious" decision to perform a simple action (such as pushing a button) preceded the action. This conscious decision, however occurred only after the "premotor" area in the brain first fired with a burst of electrical activity. In other words, people decide to act only after their brain unconsciously prepares them to do so.
In an unspoken voice, Peter Levine
So are these "unconscious decisions" the will of the absolute acting upon our subconscious? The thought forms emanating up or down through the densities and reaching our transducing units and manifesting in physical actions or behaviours?
What does that mean for my search for the real I? Technically I am all, the good and the evil, I am all the manifestations of the absolute because I am the absolute. Yet right now I am here as a fragment of the same and I must choose which face of it I shall manifest as at this "time" It is as if the battle is through me as to who "I" am. Which thought forms will I listen to, or as is suggested above has it already been decided before I act? I was thinking all of Tuesday, Am I simply an awareness of the play unfolding using my physical body? An afterthought of the decisions of some higher source which I am not privy to understanding at present? Am I just a conscious machine or do I really have a choice? I feel like sometimes I am just witnessing actions taking place, as if my consciousness takes a step back and things just "happen". Yet I came to realise this manifests in different ways, if I switch off and don't think about my actions and words before they come out and seemingly unconscious thoughts manifest, they tend towards the service to self variety, I am more likely to be cruel and selfish towards others because my awareness of what I am doing is not functioning. I am allowing a contractile single pointed gathering of consciousness to take control because my awareness only extends to that single moment of myself, what makes me feel good at that point in time and not what the consequences of my actions/words may be. Yet if I "self remember" and expand my awareness of the current moment to encompass all that is in and around it and what may be, my focus stretches and I feel open and my actions tend towards the thoughtful and service to others variety. How my words and actions affect others and how I can utilise my knowledge to be helpful in each situation. So to that degree I feel like I do have control. My control over myself and my body is my will and my focus. A constant effort is required to maintain the will and awareness required to allow the desired thought forms to flow inward and manifest through me. I am a vessel of the expression of higher realms and it is my task or choice to be a clear channel for the service to others emanations. Like a positive feedback loop, I will myself to do things like sleeping well, maintaining a challenging diet, taking cold showers, taking vitamins/minerals, not taking drugs, not self harming, I practice yoga, take care of my body and mind, learn, meditate, read and live a positive existence in order for the grooving of a different channel than what I was aligned with 4 years ago. The more steps I take towards this goal the easier it becomes because my connection to that path becomes stronger.
"The future is like a tree, with one "true life" and many possible branches, depending on choices made, gives life to a branch and withers or stops growth in another."
LJK
"The exploration and balancing of the spirit complex is indeed the longest and most subtle part of your teaching. We have considered the mind as a tree. The mind controls the body. With the mind single pointed, balanced and aware, the body comfortable in whatever biases and distortions make it appropriately balanced for that instrument, the instrument is then ready to proceed with the greater work. That is the work of the wind and fire. The spiritual body energy field is a pathway or channel. When body and mind are receptive and open, then the spirit can become a functioning shuttle or communicator from the entities individual energy/will upwards and from the streamings of the the creative fire and wind downwards."
Bringers of the Dawn, Barbara Marciniak
So I suppose in conclusion I know what I want to do and that is to learn as much as possible in order for me to be able to grow and see my reality objectively. Once I have a handle on what I hope and believe is as an objective a view as currently possible I aim to be able to share that knowledge with others who are asking in order to help them advance on their paths. Anything else is simply distractions and counter productive. Love is light is knowledge after all.
"Efforts give results proportionate to understanding. One must not believe anything, one must verify everything. One must not do anything until one understands why and for what purpose. One must not do unnecessary things."
In Search of the Miraculous
"Being serious means to take nothing seriously with the exception of things which you know
are important in relation to what you want"
In search of the miraculous
"order can be brought out of chaos by observing chaos as it is and not pretending that is is otherwise. If you are able to view the universe as it views itself, objectively, without blinking and with acceptance, then you become more "aligned" with the creative energy of the universe and your very consciousness becomes a transducer of order. Your energy of observation, given unconditionally, can bring order to chaos, can create out of infinite potential. It is not whether or not one believes in good things or bad things that makes good things or bad things happen. It is the factual observation of reality and whether or not it leads to a true assessment or lies"
LJK
I can't help but think of a book I read called Chaos by James Gleick which explains patterns and order which arises from seemingly chaotic, complicated rhythms of nature. For example the Lorenz system which was based on a weather simulation computer programme:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system
"As the system is an organic whole, the understanding of any part contributes to the understanding of the whole and vice versa. Even the operation of any part is relevant to the operation of the whole (think fractals here)"
LJK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU5tonVT-RU
But how do I discern who is really asking? To me it seems like no one is really asking at all, but that is probably just my perception at present, I shall have to hone my senses and intuition to find the real questioners.
"Very few beings really seek knowledge in this world - few really ask. On the contrary, they try to wring from the unknown the answers they have already shaped in their own minds - justifications, confirmations, forms of consolation without which they can't go on. To really ask is to open the door to a whirlwind. The answer may annihilate the question and the questioner."
The C's
This makes me think back to the first time I was given the book High Strangeness by my flatmate. It wasn't long after I had returned from travelling in Asia and had experienced an "awakening" in Cambodia where I saw the hierarchy of the cosmos. I certainly wasn't asking to see what I did and had no former belief in anything beyond the 3 dimensional universe we lived in. I was an atheist and had never seen or read any of these theories, so where did this idea suddenly come from? What was I asking for? It was a complete turnaround of everything I was certain about. The universe was a pointless accident and so was I, then suddenly it was like "oh by the way, this is happening, Boom we all share a mind BTW". I could never look at anything in the same way again.
She had never even read the book and it was given to her by a friend years previously. It was by pure chance that it came into my possession and it lay unread for months in my room till one day I chose to pick it up. After that, everything about my current perspective of what was shifted gears again. This is what confuses me, who was I asking questions to? How did all these synchronous events lead me to this point when I had no idea I was asking any questions at all. Was I seeking something on a subconscious level? Or perhaps it was just "good karma" that helped me along when I needed it most. And boy I needed it then, I was in serious danger of going down the "wrong" path with no hope of return.
"The balancing mechanism of karma does not merely serve the rectification process of our many spiritual teachings, but actually serve to harmonize the soul in objective understanding of unity of all, or to consolidate a contractile soul that refuses repeatedly to see difference as many aspects of the one and chooses instead to seek to make all one by eliminating differences"
The C's
Perhaps my experiences were simply a rectification of something that went awry earlier on in my life which pushed me in the "wrong" direction and caused so many years of disharmony and misery that I experienced as a result of my misalignment. Who knows? the future is open and I can't wait to see where it will lead for me, or where I choose to take it.
"As we have told you before, if you will be patient just a moment, the universe is merely a school. And, a school is there for all to learn. That is why everything exists. There is no other reason. Now, if only you understood the true depth of that statement, you would begin to start to see, and experience for yourself, all the levels of density that it is possible to experience, all the dimensions that it is possible to experience, all awareness. When an individual understands that statement to its greatest possible depth, that individual becomes illumined. And, certainly you have heard of that. And, for one moment, which lasts for all eternity, that individual knows absolutely everything that there is to know."
The C's
